Senate Judiciary Committee hears hours of testimony on SB 279 'Go Safe Act,' accepts substitute for further review; vote postponed

Senate Judiciary Committee members on Thursday heard extended public and expert testimony on Senate Bill 279, the Go Safe Act, a proposal to prohibit certain gas-operated semiautomatic firearms and high-capacity magazines in New Mexico, and accepted a committee substitute for further review before taking a final vote.

The substitute was moved during committee by a member as a “do not pass” on the original SB 279 and “do pass” on the Senate Judiciary committee substitute for purposes of discussion. The bill sponsors told the committee they accepted the substitute; committee leadership then struck a controversial civil-rights-immunity provision from the substitute and agreed to delay a formal vote until the committee reconvenes Wednesday.

Why it matters: The original SB 279 would have defined regulated weapons by internal operation — the gas-operated semiautomatic mechanism and ability to accept detachable magazines. The committee substitute instead uses a features-based test (a list of external characteristics such as pistol grip or barrel shroud) modeled after Illinois’ Protect Illinois Communities Act and prior New Mexico draft legislation. Legal advocates and gun-rights groups told the committee the difference matters because courts assess such laws differently; sponsors said the substitute would be more likely to withstand judicial review.

Supporters, including survivors and public-safety officials, described personal loss and urged passage. Regina Griego, survivor membership lead for Moms Demand Action, said, “My brother was killed with an assault weapon, and I will never be able to celebrate a holiday or a birthday with him and his family again.” New Mexico State Police Chief Troy Wiesler testified the agency “support[s] the efforts in this bill to prohibit devices that increase the rate of fire from a firearm, making it potentially a more lethal weapon.”

Veterans’ groups also testified in support. Chris Marvin, representing the Everytown Veterans Advisory Council and Vet Voice Foundation, called the bill “an innovative, pragmatic approach,” arguing, “gas operated semiautomatic firearms have no place in civilian hands.” Harrison Tarter, a former U.S. Army platoon leader, said he carried an M4 in combat and stated, “Civilian hands are the wrong hands for gas operated, semiautomatic firearms. Please pass this bill.” Students and survivors also spoke: Albuquerque high school student Wesley Clum testified, “Being a student in America…means risking my life every single day.”

Opponents — trade groups, hunting outfitters and individual gun owners — argued the bill would sweep in commonly owned firearms, raise constitutional problems and create enforcement headaches. Nick Tuccio, state director of the National Rifle Association, called the measure “an unconstitutional assault on the rights of responsible New Mexicans,” and said firearms the bill targets “fall squarely” within the Second Amendment protections identified in Heller. Keith Gardner of the National Shooting Sports Foundation said, “I think it’s also important to note this is absolutely a ban. Don’t kid yourselves.” Several speakers warned that grandfathering and serialization provisions could be impractical; Eric Rasmussen, who identified himself with the New Mexico Arms Industry Association, said fixed-magazine requirements would make safe unloading and handling harder.

Committee discussion focused on the differences between the original bill and the committee substitute. Kyle Duffy, deputy general counsel in the Office of the Governor, explained, “At bottom, the bills differ most in their definition of the regulated weapons,” describing the original as an internal-mechanics (gas-operated) test and the substitute as an external-features test (for example, barrel shrouds or pistol grips). Olivia Lee, senior counsel at Everytown for Gun Safety, said both drafts cover “virtually the exact same world of weapons” but that the substitute was designed to allow “featureless” models of AR-platform firearms that comply with assault-weapons laws in other states.

The committee substitute contains a grandfathering structure that requires owners of regulated items to file an endorsement affidavit with the Department of Public Safety or a federally licensed firearms dealer; committee staff and witnesses said neither draft includes a buyback provision. Duffy told the committee the affidavit must include make, model, caliber and serial number and must be filed within 60 days of inheritance in the substitute’s text presented to the committee.

Several committee members raised drafting and scope concerns. One senator described the substitute’s list-based approach as circular in places and questioned whether common semiautomatic shotguns and pistols could be captured by the definitions; experts on Zoom responded that some long-used designs (for example, fixed-magazine M1 Garand) would be exempt but that many modern variants could be regulated depending on features. Committee members also noted an expectation of litigation and urged additional review to reduce the state’s exposure to costly, protracted court cases.

Actions and next steps: The committee accepted the motion to consider the committee substitute for discussion; sponsors signaled acceptance of the substitute. Committee members later moved and the panel struck section 9 (a civil-rights immunity provision) from the substitute. Rather than vote on passage, the panel postponed formal action and will resume consideration at the committee’s next scheduled meeting Wednesday.

The record: testimony in favor included survivors, gun-safety groups and New Mexico State Police. Opposition included the NRA, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, hunting-outfitter representatives, and many individual gun owners. Multiple experts and witnesses referenced the 1994–2004 federal assault-weapons ban and U.S. Supreme Court rulings including District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in legal arguments.

Votes at a glance: No final committee votes were recorded on SB 279 or the committee substitute during this meeting; formal action was postponed.